The section that deals specifically with climate change
reporting is titled:

"Man‐made global warming: a microcosm of
"false balance"?"

The report suggests that communicating clearly the complexities
of climate science is a difficult job:

"[The BBC's Environment Analyst] made it
clear to us quite how seriously the issue was taken, how hard it
has been to persuade people to understand estimates of risk (upon
which much of the argument turns) and how much better politicians,
self‐publicists and paid pundits are at forensic oratory than are
the scientists invited to state their case."

The section on the response the BBC gets from climate
'denialism' notes:

"[Proponents of the idea that global
warming is a myth] … practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to
give the appearance of debate. This is not the same as scepticism,
for a sceptic is willing to change his or her mind when provided
with evidence. A denialist is not. Many among them see themselves
as intellectual martyrs in a war against political correctness and
as worthy successors to Galileo. Whatever the claim - AIDS has
nothing to do with viruses, the MMR vaccine is unsafe, complex
organs could never evolve, or even that the 9/11 disaster was a US
government plot - the syndrome has some consistent themes."

"The tale is told of a vast conspiracy
to hide the truth and of dissent quashed by secret forces. People
with strong opinions should be given equal weight with experts. Any
evidence that contradicts their ideas must be publicised and the
rest ignored, while any statement of doubt about conventional
wisdom is trumpeted from the rooftops. Standards of proof should be
set so high as to be impossible to attain."

"Most important in the context of this
Report, any concession by the establishment that it is less than
certain of the accuracy of its claims - that there is, in other
words, room for discussion - is taken as a statement of
surrender."

The problem, the report suggests, is that:

"On one side are the deniers, most of
whom hold libertarian views, while on the other are the alarmists,
usually from the left. The BBC has shown signs of being trapped in
the middle."

However, it draws a distinction between the politics and
policies of climate change, and the scientific factbase:

"Where policy is concerned, the argument
is far from resolved. Science can inform the debate, but policy
implications of global warming remain a legitimate part of the news
agenda. In its submission to this Report, the Global Warming Policy
Foundation (active in casting doubt on the truth of man‐made
climate change) told me that they are producing a review with a
focus on climate science and science policy. As they say, "... it
is one thing to get basic science facts right yet quite another to
promote (or criticise) particular science policies". That is a
reasonable point and they should, no doubt, have a voice in this
debate. All of us involved in this debate need to remember that we
are entitled to our own opinions but none of us are entitled to our
own facts."

By contrast, when it comes to the science, there is an agreed
factbase which should be reflected in coverage:

"That is not the case for warming
itself, for the evidence is overwhelming. Starting in 1959 with
measurements on Hawaii it is clear that the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. Ice cores shows that for half
a million years before the Industrial Revolution its level
fluctuated between 180 and 300 parts per million. Since around 1800
it has risen from 280 to 390 parts per million; a 40% increase.
Basic physics shows that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There
have been many computer models of what may happen in future, and
although there remains controversy as to how much the feedbacks -
melting ice, rising seas, dying plants - will multiply the direct
effect of the gas, almost every climatologist predicts a period of
rising temperature. Three independent sets of records of global
temperature agree that 2010 was one of the three hottest years
since figures were first collected and that nine of the ten warmest
years on record have been since 2000. To bring matters up to date,
2011 saw the warmest April in Central England for 350 years."

"A 2008 survey to which thousands of
Earth scientists responded found that 90% agreed that temperatures
have risen since 1800 and that 82% consider that human activity has
been significant in this. 96% of specialists in atmospheric physics
agreed with the first statement, and 97% with the second. Truth is
not defined by opinion polls but it is difficult to deny the
consensus."

The Trust's report then turns to the issue of 'false-balance' in
the BBC's coverage:

"The presentational style of some
coverage ... has continued to suggest that a real scientific
disagreement was present long after a consensus had been reached.
Jeremy Vine's introduction to a 2010 Panorama makes the point:
"What's up with the weather?": "Does anyone believe the claims
anymore? ... A freezing winter and allegations that the scientists
have misled us have set the experts at loggerheads". That
antagonistic statement is typical of how the agenda on climate
change is sometimes set. It suggests that there are two equally
valid points of view that must be sorted out - ten years after
consensus had been reached that (whatever the cause) climate change
is happening."

"As the Content Analysis indicates,
there was a (to put it kindly) nuanced News and Current Affairs
treatment of the 2010 Muir Russell Report on the University of East
Anglia's "Climategate" story. The report's findings were, in order,
that the honesty of the scientists involved was not in doubt, that
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's conclusions were
not undermined by their work, and that they had been insufficiently
open about the presentation of some of their data. The major point
was the acceptance of scientific accuracy - but most news reports
led on the last, openness, point; and most included a substantial
contribution by climate sceptics whose claims had been refuted
rather than accepted by the Report itself. Newsnight had a lengthy
discussion in which a prominent climate change denier spoke first,
last, and for the longest time although the piece was reporting the
dismissal rather than the acceptance of his claims."

(The commentator referred to is Lord Lawson - the GWPF described
the programme as a '
Welcome sea change' in the corporation's coverage).

"The impression of active debate is
promoted by prominent individuals such as Lord Monckton and Lord
Lawson. The BBC still gives space to them to make statements that
are not supported by the facts; that (in a February 2011 The Daily
Politics show) 95% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes
from natural sources, while in fact human activity has been
responsible for a 40% rise in concentration, or (a November 2009
Today programme) that volcanoes produce more of the gas than do
humans (the balance is a hundred times in the opposite direction).
For at least three years, the climate change deniers have been
marginal to the scientific debate but somehow they continued to
find a place on the airwaves."

Lord Monckton is described in slightly bizarre terms:

"Things are, perhaps, improving. Lord
Monckton is, without doubt, a man who adds to the gaiety of nations
and is a skilled communicator of his views. However, a recent BBC
Four investigation ("Meet the Climate Sceptics", Storyville, 31st
Jan 2011) of his activities made his isolation from mainstream
beliefs very clear."

The report finally notes the challenge of the narrative that has
become established around climate science:

"The climate story has lessons about
impartiality that could be useful in a wider context. It promotes
the essential lesson that science is a process and not a result,
that as information grows its narrative can alter and,
occasionally, may even change direction. Uncertainty is part of the
system and often means that a discovery can be stated only in terms
of probability. Unlike the deniers, scientists accept that they
could be wrong. To do so is not to admit that they are
dishonest."